| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your weapon proficiencies are definitely abilities. You need only take a look at the Rogue section to see this.
Class Features
You gain these abilities as a rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the level at which you gain them next to the features’ names.
So Class Features are explicitly identified as abilities. Now take a look lower on the page at the second Class Feature listed.
Initial Proficiencies
At 1st level, you gain a number of proficiencies that represent your basic training. These proficiencies are noted at the start of this class.
Initial Proficiencies are Class Features and therefore, from the first quoted section, are abilities. Among the Initial Proficiencies referenced is this one.
Trained in the rapier, sap, shortbow, and shortsword.
Being Trained in the shortbow is an Initial Proficiency which is a Class Feature which is an ability. So we have established that your Initial Proficiency with a shortbow is an ability. Now we have this...
Composite Shortbow: This shortbow is made from horn, wood, and sinew laminated together to increase the power of its pull and the force of its projectile. Its compact size and power make it a favorite of mounted archers. Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated.
Your Initial Proficiency is an ability that applies to shortbows and does not state that it excludes composite shortbows. So the rule above states that it also applies to composite shortbows.
Therefore, Rogues are proficient with composite shortbows.
(Note that the same chain of reasoning applies to the Class Features that upgrade your proficiency to Expert and Master.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your weapon proficiencies are definitely abilities. You need only take a look at the Rogue section to see this.
Class Features
You gain these abilities as a rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the level at which you gain them next to the features’ names.
Interestingly, the wording is different in AoN :
"You gain these features as a Rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the levels at which you gain them next to the features' names."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your weapon proficiencies are definitely abilities. You need only take a look at the Rogue section to see this.
Class Features
You gain these abilities as a rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the level at which you gain them next to the features’ names.Interestingly, the wording is different in AoN :
"You gain these features as a Rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the levels at which you gain them next to the features' names."
I can confirm that my book reads abilities not features. Even if this somehow changed in the new printrun, Class Features [Core Rulebook pg. 68] still says "This section presents all the abilities the class grants your character" on AoN so it's moot if it only changed in a specific class heading when the rules for all class features calls them abilities. Seems like a very odd thing to change...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your weapon proficiencies are definitely abilities. You need only take a look at the Rogue section to see this.
Class Features
You gain these abilities as a rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the level at which you gain them next to the features’ names.Interestingly, the wording is different in AoN :
"You gain these features as a Rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the levels at which you gain them next to the features' names."
That is odd. I cut and pasted my text straight from the 2nd printing CRB pdf. After reading your post I checked my 1st printing pdf and it also used "abilities" rather than "features." So I'm not clear why AoN would be different.
Edit: I randomly checked a half dozen other classes in the CRB and APG and they all use "abilities" rather than "features." Curiouser and curiouser.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can confirm that my book reads abilities not features. Even if this somehow changed in the new printrun, Class Features [Core Rulebook pg. 68] still says "This section presents all the abilities the class grants your character" on AoN so it's moot if it only changed in a specific class heading when the rules for all class features calls them abilities. Seems like a very odd thing to change...Your weapon proficiencies are definitely abilities. You need only take a look at the Rogue section to see this.
Class Features
You gain these abilities as a rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the level at which you gain them next to the features’ names.Interestingly, the wording is different in AoN :
"You gain these features as a Rogue. Abilities gained at higher levels list the levels at which you gain them next to the features' names."
Yeah, I saw that you quoted that general definition earlier in the thread, but Cool Tiefling's GM apparently wasn't convinced that the general rule applied to the Rogue's proficiencies. So I built a rules chain that came entirely from the Rogue section itself. It should be difficult to argue that the Rogue section doesn't apply to Rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Features (as in Class features) seem to be a subset of abilities. I feel AoN missed an update of the wording.
Just for fun I checked the Playtest Rulebook, and it also used "abilities." So no pdf versions of the PF2 CRB have ever used the AoN text.
The mystery deepens ;-D
Is blaming Cosmo still a thing around here? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is blaming Cosmo still a thing around here? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are cracking me up... RFLMAO :-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are cracking me up... RFLMAO :-D
I lot of us have been here for a long time. We'll go at each other in these debates because we really care about the game, but we also have fun together. Check out the great Smurf experiment, for example. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure if the light-hearted banter comes from having gone to the madness or if it helps us cope with it.
Probably both. An endless cycle of insanity and frivolity. Like parenting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would LOVE to be able to apply common sense but we are playing RAW.
But even if RAI should be used then what you're saying wouldn't apply.
1. A composite bow is a martial weapon and needs the wielder to be either proficient in martial weapons or in the specific type of bow. My GM argues that the Shortbow and Composite Shortbow - even while similar - requires two dfferent proficiencies. I disagree, btw., but I'm not the GM.
You see, that's exactly the point: Your problem is not with the rules, it is with your GM.
When the entry in the weapon basically spells out 'shortbows and composite shortbows are interchangeable for purpose of proficiency unless explicitly stated to be not elsewhere', and your GM says 'no', then he is the one withe the RAW problem.
Let me be blunt: The way you describe the situation it looks a lot like your GM got fixated on an idea and is now refusing to budge, either because he's power tripping or simply refusing to admit he screwed up.
So the only way I see is you seek aid in reductio ad absurdum. So imagine that the categories of simple and martial weapons contain very different weapons with very different fighting styles. Yet we do not even have such simple things as 'bladed weapon proficiency' or 'bludgeoning weapon proficiency' or even 'two-handed impact weapons', we have simple weapons, martial weapons and advanced weapons.
Most classes just use simple and martial proficiency and are done. One exception is the Wizard, who is such an egg-head that he's not even proficient with all simple weapons and needs to have the ones he is trained with called out for him.
Another exception is the Rogue, who is kinda a demi-martial and thus trained with a select few martial weapons. One of which just happens to exist in both a simple and a more complicated version. Both of which are explicitly stated to be interchangeable.
Now of course the Rogue could have both the shortbow and the composite shortbow listed as his trained martial weapons.
But the composite shortbow is already lumped in with the short bow.
In much the same way that 'simple weapon proficiency' does not need to be spelled out as 'trained in Clan Dagger, Club, Dagger ... and Throwing Knife' and 'martial weapon proficiency does not need to be spelled out a 'trained in Bastard Sword, Battle Axe ... and Whip', 'short bow proficiency' does not need to be spelled out as 'trained in short bow and composite short bow'.
Simple weapons is a category. Martial weapons is a category. Advanced weapons is a category. Shortbow is a weapon category within the martial weapon category.
Yes, it is a category containing a whopping two entries, but it is a category and explicitly defined as one.
So why is a Wizard not proficient in simple weapons? Because he is not proficient in all simple weapons, only a subset of those. Why is the Rogue not proficient in martial weapons? Because he is only trained in a few of those.
But why would the Rogue not be trained in composite shortbows? Because he is trained only in a subset of short bows? No! 'Short bow' is the name of the weapon category, just as 'simple weapons' and 'martial weapons'. Proficiency in 'short bows' encompasses ALL weapons in the 'short bow' category, which are short bows and composite short bows.
Therefore, we have shown that short bows and composite short bows are indeed in the same weapon category, and since Rogues are explicitly trained in this specific category of weapons, the onus now lies on your GM to prove why composite short bows are supposed to be excluded from that category.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a Ruffin rogue who's key stat is STR can't use Composite Short bows? Bards are also trained in short bows BTW.
The only thing I could find in a Rule book is in the GMG, the NPC Burglar & Assassin are both rogues lists composite shortbows as part of their weapons.
Thats all I got :p
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all for your input. I think that we may call this a wrap since my GM has listened and reconsidered.
Cheers :-D